- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 05:01:41 -0400
- To: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On 29/04/2012 04:25, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Anton Prowse<prowse@moonhenge.net> wrote: >> I read you as saying: table fixup occurs before flexbox does its thing, >> but block-in-inline fixup occurs after [flexbox does its thing]. This >> appears to be consistent with s/flexbox/block layout/. >> >> ... which leads to "block-in-inline fixup occurs after block layout does >> its thing". > > It's this part that doesn't make sense. I never mentioned block > layout. Why are you asking me a question about it in relation to > flexbox? Sure you did. I'm asking you a question about it because you offered it as justification of a particular choice of behaviour in flexbox layout. Perhaps it's easier if you could just express what you wrote below in different terms? On 26/01/2012 00:14, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > For clarity, I have currently specified that table-fixup occurs > *before* flexbox does its thing, but block-in-inline fixup occurs > *after*. This appears to be consistent with how these two fixup steps > occur in _block layout_, based on the limited testing I've done so > far. (My emphasis expressed with '_') Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Sunday, 29 April 2012 09:02:14 UTC